A heavyweight candidate for dark matter

Looking at dark matter: this photo is a montage of several images and shows the colliding galaxy clusters collectively known as the “Bullet Cluster” (1E 0657-56). The galaxies visible in optical light in the background image are overlaid with X-rays from the intergalactic gas clouds (pink), as well as the mass distribution calculated from gravitational lensing effects and therefore – indirectly – the dark matter (blue). Credit: NASA/CXC/M. Weiss

Almost a quarter of the universe stands literally in the shadows. According to cosmologists' theories, 25.8% of it is made up of dark matter, whose presence is signaled essentially only by its gravitational pull. What this substance consists of remains a mystery. Hermann Nicolai, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, and his colleague Krzysztof Meissner from the University of Warsaw have now proposed a new candidate—a superheavy gravitino. The existence of this still hypothetical particle follows from a hypothesis that seeks to explain how the observed spectrum of quarks and leptons in the standard model of particle physics might emerge from a fundamental theory. In addition, the researchers describe a possible method for actually tracking down this particle.

The standard model of particle physics encompasses the building blocks of matter and the forces that hold them together. It states that there are six different quarks and six leptons that are grouped into three "families." However, the matter around us and we ourselves are ultimately made up of only three particles from the first family: the up and down quarks and the electron, which is a member of the lepton family.

Until now, this long-established standard model has remained unchanged. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva was brought into service around ten years ago with the main purpose of exploring what might lie beyond. However, after ten years of taking data, scientists have failed to detect any new elementary particles, apart from the Higgs boson, despite widely held expectations to the contrary. In other words, until now, measurements with the LHC have failed to provide any hints whatsoever of "new physics" beyond the standard model. These findings stand in stark contrast to numerous proposed extensions of this model that suggest a large number of new particles.

In an earlier article published in Physical Review Letters, Hermann Nicolai and Krzysztof Meissner have presented a new hypothesis that seeks to explain why only the already known elementary particles occur as basic building blocks of matter in nature—and why, contrary to what was previously thought, no new particles are to be expected in the energy range accessible to current or conceivable future experiments.

In addition, the two researchers postulate the existence of supermassive gravitinos, which could be highly unusual candidates for dark matter. In a second publication, which recently appeared in the journal Physical Review D, they also set out a proposal for how to track these gravitinos down.

In their work, Nicolai and Meissner take up an old idea from the Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann that is based on the "N=8 Supergravity" theory. One key element of their proposal is a new type of infinite-dimensional symmetry that is intended to explain the observed spectrum of the known quarks and leptons in three families. "Our hypothesis actually produces no additional particles for ordinary matter that would then need to be argued away because they do not show up in accelerator experiments," says Hermann Nicolai. "By contrast, our hypothesis can in principle explain precisely what we see, in particular the replication of quarks and leptons in three families."

However, processes in the cosmos cannot be explained entirely by the ordinary matter that we are already aware of. One sign of this are galaxies: they rotate at a high speed, and the visible matter in the universe—which only accounts for about 5% of the matter in the universe—would not be enough to hold them together. So far, however, no one knows what the rest is made of, despite numerous suggestions. The nature of dark matter is therefore one of the most important unanswered questions in cosmology.

"The common expectation is that dark matter is made up of an elementary particle, and that it hasn't been possible to detect this particle yet because it interacts with ordinary matter almost exclusively by the gravitational force," says Hermann Nicolai. The model developed in collaboration with Krzysztof Meissner offers a new candidate for a dark-matter particle of this kind, albeit one with completely different properties from all of the candidates discussed so far, such as axions or WIMPs. The latter interact only very weakly with known matter. The same holds true for the very light gravitinos that have been repeatedly proposed as dark matter candidates in connection with low energy supersymmetry. However, the present proposal goes in a completely different direction, in that it no longer assigns a primary role to supersymmetry, even though the scheme descends from maximal N=8 supergravity. "In particular, our scheme predicts the existence of superheavy gravitinos, which—unlike the usual candidates and unlike the previously considered light gravitinos—would also interact strongly and electromagnetically with ordinary matter," says Hermann Nicolai.

Their large mass means that these particles could only occur in very dilute form in the universe; otherwise, they would 'overclose' the universe and thus lead to its early collapse. According to the Max Planck researcher, one actually wouldn't need very many of them to explain the dark matter content in the universe and in our galaxy—one particle per 10,000 cubic kilometres would be sufficient. The mass of the particle postulated by Nicolai and Meissner lies in the region of the Planck mass—that is, around a hundred millionth of a kilogram. In comparison, protons and neutrons—the building blocks of the atomic nucleus—are around ten quintillion (ten million trillion) times lighter. In intergalactic space, the density would be even much lower.

"The stability of these heavy gravitinos hinges on their unusual quantum numbers (charges)," says Nicolai. "Specifically, there are quite simply no final states with the corresponding charges in the standard model into which these gravitinos could decay—otherwise, they would have disappeared shortly after the Big Bang."

Their strong and electromagnetic interactions with known matter may make these dark matter particles easier to track down despite their extreme rarity. One possibility is to search for them with dedicated time-of-flight measurements deep underground, as these particles move a great deal slower than the speed of light, unlike ordinary elementary particles originating from cosmic radiation. Nevertheless, they would penetrate the Earth without effort because of their large mass—like a cannon ball that cannot be stopped by a swarm of mosquitoes.

This fact gives the researchers the idea of using our planet itself as a "paleo-detector": the Earth has been orbiting through interplanetary space for some 4.5 billion years, during which time it must have been penetrated by many of these massive gravitinos. In the process, the particles should have left long, straight ionisation tracks in the rock, but it may not be easy to distinguish them from tracks caused by known particles. "Ionising radiation is known to cause lattice defects in crystal structures. It may be possible to detect relics of such ionisation tracks in crystals that remain stable over millions of years," says Hermann Nicolai. Because of its long "exposure time" such a search strategy could also be successful in case dark matter is not homogeneously distributed inside galaxies but subject to local density fluctuations—which could also explain the failure of searches for more conventional dark matter candidates so far.

Citation:
A heavyweight candidate for dark matter (2019, August 21)
retrieved 15 September 2019
from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-heavyweight-candidate-dark.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

User comments

So cool that there are still some great mysteries to solve in the Universe and this being a big one (what is dark matter and where exactly is it and how does it work). I think if we were to actually track where all the Great Attractors are in our universe and then why that spot and where do all the others end up (and why/where/when), it would help reverse engineer what dark matter is and what gravity really is and how it works. We don't really understand why we have the constants we have or why things work the way they do. One minute we are told that the universe is moving away from everything and trillions of years from now we may suffer a cold heat death, the next minute we are all on collision course for Andromeda Galaxy, then a long list of others to meet up (crunch) at the Great Attractor. We may still have some big math errors that cause our calculations to be off to help figure out what Dark Matter, or dark energy is. We are missing something important with how Gravity works.

Maybe we keep seeing the runny nose (how gravity seems to work at first glance), but don't realize it is a cold or virus (dark energy) actually running the show. For such a weak force, Gravity sure holds a lot of stuff together for a very long period of time over vast differences. Amazing to see how things move toward more of a flat plain in a galaxy and solar system. Interesting to see how electrons and protons hold together and how galaxies merge and hold together, but are all on some distant track (Great Attractor).

Consider the following unexplained accelerations: Cosmological Expansion, galactic rotation rates, the flyby anomaly, the Pioneer anomaly, comets (currently assumed to be due to off-gassing), Oumuamua.

Assume there is no such thing as "dark matter" OR "dark energy". Instead, just assume that all of these accelerations are due to the straightforward operation of gravity. Because some of these accelerations are positive and some are negative, this would mean that the force of gravity operates as a dampened wave function.

The fact that gravity is sometimes negative and sometimes negative has been missed in the past because over time matter eventually settles into elliptical orbits due to Bertrand's theorem.

Very interesting work. This could dovetail with the newly formed hypothesis that all dark matter was created during the short inflation period after the Big Bang. That would explain why we can't create it in the lab, far to high energies to ever be achieved there. If it were stable, then it easily could for the glue of galaxies and explain the rotation rates. In this case, modified gravity would be unnecessary (and I seriously doubt gravity has any different form than as described by Newton and Einstein). This article's suggestion on how to look for these super heavy particles is worth a try. Clearly we're missing the boat on dark matter completely at the current time. Very interesting possibilities!

Very interesting work. This could dovetail with the newly formed hypothesis that all dark matter was created during the short inflation period after the Big Bang. That would explain why we can't create it in the lab, far to high energies to ever be achieved there.

There are several studies lately pointing in this direction and the best part is they work well with just about everything including M-theory/supersymmetry. The state of the inflaton fields that preceded the big bang seem to be fundamental in the creation of the physics and components of the universe as we know it.

A very interesting and informative article it is. Quite well written too.

"...have now proposed a new candidate—a superheavy gravitino. The existence of this still hypothetical particle follows from a hypothesis that seeks to explain how the observed spectrum of quarks and leptons in the standard model of particle physics might emerge from a fundamental theory. In addition, the researchers describe a possible method for actually tracking down this particle."

Yes, hope springs eternal.

But the BEST candidate for the supposed ~95% that is BEYOND normal Matter/Energy is PLASMA. It is Plasma that surrounds and interacts with Matter/Energy. It is Plasma that allows Gravitational effects ON Mass/Energy. What we call "Space" is Plasma. All Matter/Energy floats in it. It is not dark, nor is it mysterious. It is the "stuff" in which everything moves and exists, from the largest down to the smallest within the quantum levels. Plasma IS the Universe.

Assume there is no such thing as "dark matter" OR "dark energy". Instead, just assume that all of these accelerations are due to the straightforward operation of gravity. Because some of these accelerations are positive and some are negative, this would mean that the force of gravity operates as a dampened wave function.The fact that gravity is sometimes negative and sometimes negative has been missed in the past because over time matter eventually settles into elliptical orbits due to Bertrand's theorem.

Gravity is a non autonomous field modality of the only real field, the ether. Magnetism is another field modality. There are no poles on a magnet and no such thing as magnetic attraction. The magnet seems to attract an object, but it is the magnetic field bringing the object into coherency and accelerating them to a null point in counterspace(the ether) between the two objects. Gravity works in a similar way.

The best answer is most often the simplest and most realistic one. A straightforward answer that is meaningful to help eliminate any pretentious 'faerie dust' that is conjured up by the conjecturists who prefer more exotic answers over the basic and most honest, truthful proposals.Science is full of conjecturists who refuse to countenance the basic nature of the Universe, but instead, prefer to wade into the waters of the hypothetical so that they may be seen to be hard-at-work in their search for such phantoms as "Dark Matter", when the obvious is right there in front of their eyes.Gravity, in its various strengths of adhesive ability, is the glue that holds the Matter/Energy together in the Universe. It varies in strength accordingly, as Mass is accreted towards other Mass, where the Gravity grows stronger the closer the two masses move toward each other.But scientists are unsatisfied with that, and are searching for another source and reason for accretion. They won't find it

"Looking at dark matter: this photo is a montage of several images and shows the colliding galaxy clusters collectively known as the "Bullet Cluster" (1E 0657-56). The galaxies visible in optical light in the background image are overlaid with X-rays from the intergalactic gas clouds (pink), as well as the mass distribution calculated from gravitational lensing effects and therefore – indirectly – the dark matter (blue). Credit: NASA/CXC/M."

I have never failed to notice that the manner in which DM advocacy is promoted, the authors ALWAYS insert "gravitational lensing effects" almost as if it cannot happen except for the presence of DM. In 1916 Einstein wrote up light ray deflection (g-lensing) in GR long before anyone had even postulated ANYTHING about DM existing.

Fascinating proposal. I would think it feasible to test by examining well-formed quartz crystals obtained from deep underground (the paper suggest using deep, old rocks). Quartz, being optically clear, might be amenable to scanning by laser. Careful analysis of the scatter might reveal microscopic scatter points arranged in straight lines right through the crystal.

If Plasma was 'normal matter', it would then have to be the most diffused and spread out kind of matter in existence. Its molecules would have to be separated by huge spaces and voids where very few Stars and planets can be seen to exist. The dust and gases in Plasma would be spread out all over the Universe. Its properties would include the ability to stretch, shrink, bend, fold in on itself, form wormholes/tunnels, cradle Stars and planets and more.

But the conjecturists in the science communities who believe in hypotheses will INSIST that the mysterious Dark Matter is at the core, without the necessary proof/evidence. The magician's wand brings the Dark Matter out of the shadows. He declares it to be the true source of everything that Normal Matter/Energy is not. That human eyes have never seen it is of no great consequence, for IT MUST BE.

Says 25.8 % is Dark Matter, then says visible matter in the universe only accounts for about 5 % ...Don't you hate it when a report is sub-edited unto apparent self-contradiction ??

This is a common misunderstanding. DM is t h e mystery-matter. Visible matter is what we can see, eg. ionized matter, plasma, or illuminated matter. The universe is mostly chock full of ordinary cold(ish) hydrogen.

Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.

In the Bullet Cluster collision the dark matter has not separated from the ordinary matter. The collision is analogous to two boats that collide, the boats slow down and their bow waves continue to propagate. The water has not separated from the boats, the bow waves have. In the Bullet Cluster collision the galaxy's associated dark matter displacement waves have separated from the colliding galaxies, causing the light to lense

Joe1963> The fact that gravity is sometimes negative and sometimes negative has been missed in the past because over time matter eventually settles into elliptical orbits due to Bertrand's theorem

A Wave FunctionIn quantum physicsIs a mathematical description of the quantum stateOf an isolated quantum systemThe wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitudeThe probabilitiesFor the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from itThe most common symbols for a wave functionAre the Greek letters ψ or Ψ (lower-case and capital psi, respectively).The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedomCorresponding to some maximal set of commuting observablesThe wave function can be derived from the quantum state

Joe1963, gravity as a wave function, divides into gravity, and mathematics as the wave functionAre you the mathematician in the house, Joe1963 https://en.wikipe...function

But even with such a few number of them spread out all over, after 13 billion years without some unknown reason to keep them apart, they would begin to gravitate towards eachother and while they may cannon ball thru normal matter, they would not be able to do the same to themselves. What force keeps them from creating dense macroscopic forms of dark matter if they interact with gravity the way normal matter does and potentially even EM?

Why wouldn't they get trapped in around the cores of any high gravity objects since they move so slow, just orbiting the center of gravity plowing thru the normal matter around it, leading to detectable anomalous mass/density readings for larger objects as increasing amounts of dark matter collect near the cores?

Not being able to explain that while not seeing those discrepancies in mass/density measurements of massive nearby objects is why the more exotic definitions of dark matter persist.

Now I feel like should have read at least one of the fifty dozen recent popular-science stories saturating the media about dark matter that could kill people so I could be more up to speed on this vital topic.

The claim is based purely on the assumption that gravity is relevant at the largest scales, it is clear that it isn't. Electromagnetism is what drives these systems, and there is no shortage of matter.

If Plasma was 'normal matter', it would then have to be the most diffused and spread out kind of matter in existence.

Plasma is normal matter, but responds primarily to the EM forces it resides within and creates. And plasma isn't space, but it does "fill" space.

after 13 billion years without some unknown reason to keep them apart, they would begin to gravitate towards eachother and while they may cannon ball thru normal matter, they would not be able to do the same to themselves. What force keeps them from creating dense macroscopic forms of dark matter if they interact with gravity the way normal matter does and potentially even EM?

Why wouldn't they get trapped in around the cores of any high gravity objects since they move so slow, just orbiting the center of gravity plowing thru the normal matter around it, leading to detectable anomalous mass/density readings for larger objects as increasing amounts of dark matter collect near the cores?

Not being able to explain that while not seeing those discrepancies in mass/density measurements of massive nearby objects is why the more exotic definitions of dark matter persist.

....it's easy to explain, DM being magical Cosmic Fairy Dust knows when we are looking for it, then hides.

All these folks with very firm speculation, all so sure.That most contradict each other and experimental science makes no difference, each one swears by his own theory.To me, this latest sounds an awful lot like the mini black hole theory disproved long ago. Similar particle size and mass but different source. Since the method used to disprove was by looking for that size particle I suspect saying the particle came from somewhere else is not going to change what is found.

cantdrive> Symmetry is dead, has been for 20-30 years.The claim is based purely on the assumption that gravity is relevant at the largest scales, it is clear that it isn't. Electromagnetism is what drives these systems, and there is no shortage of matter.

This the demise of the jargon of scienceMOND, symmetry breaking, spacetime, darkmatter, time crystals, all these terms are fading into oblivionOne day we will be looking into the abyss, toothless, for watch this space, it will be a vacuum

The fun thing about this proposal is that it doesn't require expensive detectors and/or spending a vast amount of money to confirm. All it requires is some good geological fieldwork. A trace of such a particle would look like a short cosmic ray trace, but it would be very long.

Hmmm, according to what I've read previously this spin 3/2 fermion might have mass 1TeV/c² and could pose problems for standard cosmology;apparently only the stable form could be a candidate for DM. Others here might correct me but I don't think the MSSM can accommodate the 1 TeV gravitino but a couple of the of other modifications of SUSY can. However, no graviton as yet so is it valid to talk about a gravitino connect to DM? I'm all for research though...all good stuff.

A Planck mass particle? Really? That's ~0.02 mg, or roughly the mass of a flea egg (according to Wikipedia), which is clearly macroscopic. This mass is also 10^15 (a quadrillion) times larger than the highest energy modern particle accelerators like the LHC can reach. I am too lazy to calculate the precise energy that would be released if such a particle entered Earth's atmosphere at say 25% the speed of light (what does "a great deal slower than the speed of light" mean, more or less than that?), but let's just say that the "show" would be spectacular.

It would probably form (almost instantly) a super hot and bright, though rather thin, "fireball line", from the upper atmosphere to the ground. On the ground a non trivial crater should form, and if it hit a house it would pierce it like a hot needle would pierce butter. If the speed was faster the "fireworks" would be even flashier, if it entered Earth at <5% the speed of light the effects would be much more modest.

@Mimath, they explained why it can't decay; it has no pathway. I'm still skeptical and will want to see some evidence, but that's not a reason for rejecting it out of hand.

At least one option for decay is, apparently, via some gravitational interaction but because lifetimes are expected to be long this gives a problem with the early universe theories and therefore is generally discounted. I was checking earlier and apparently 'split susy' might provide alternatives. I originally thought the gravitino was supposed to be a massless fermion, a Ratrita-Scwinger field, but if it is not massless then obviously I'm wrong. I don't reject these hypotheses out of hand, if only for the reason that it is generally appreciated that we don't have the whole story yet anyway. It is my opinion that there should be more funding so that ToE's, SUSY etc. could be investigated thoroughly...who knows what they might find...and I'm all for that

Why wouldn't they get trapped in around the cores of any high gravity objects since they move so slow, just orbiting the center of gravity plowing thru the normal matter around it, leading to detectable anomalous mass/density readings for larger objects as increasing amounts of dark matter collect near the cores?

In the paper they speculate that a huge portion of Dark Matter in a galaxy is trapped in the cores of stars. Because the gravitinos pass through pretty much everything except stars without being "picked up", the stars of the galaxies act like sponges soaking up all gravitinos in their solar system which is why we cannot readily detect them.

DM is what modern physicists theorized to explain errors in their models. This is because of their lack of knowledge of field theory. They are detecting phenomena emanating from the ether, the only field. It has no Cartesian coordinates. It cannot be quantified; no field can. All phenomena are ether perturbations. GR and QM are rehashed Greek Atomism.

My curiosity went against my better judgment, but since I am here I can as well state the bleeding obvious. High energy theories are a dime a dozen: all possible (if done right), none compelling.

This is less compelling than most. When naturality of standard particles goes away (i.e. no WIMPs particles those mass lies just above the standard particle mass range) this paper throws away both spacetime (for emergent gravity in a supergravity physics) and (quantum field) particles. "This interpretation hinges crucially on the assumption of emergent spacetime in Ref. [14] as there appears to be no way to achieve this in the framework of space-time-based quantum field theory." [From 1st paper.]

Most compelling perhaps is to accept inflation spacetime, then have heavy particles emerge during hot big bang phase transitions ending with standrad particles. Possibly only gravity interacting - the broken strong and weak forces are still posing less laws than their having an R symmetry sector posing an infinite number of new laws.

We are missing something important with how Gravity works.

Doesn't seem likely, if gravity breaks down (classically certainly, and it follows it also breaks down as a quantum field) at Planck energies - then we know all of it now. What happens at Planck energies - i.e. "why Planck energies?" - is another matter in that case.

Consider the following unexplained accelerations: Cosmological Expansion, galactic rotation rates, the flyby anomaly, the Pioneer anomaly, comets (currently assumed to be due to off-gassing), Oumuamua.

Relevance? And you should know consensus is that all those *are* well explained. I give just one reference since it is a massive Gish gallop: cosmological expansion is classically the kinetic initial state of the universe (analogous to a thrown mass), see Susskind's Stanford video lectures in cosmology.

This could dovetail with the newly formed hypothesis that all dark matter was created during the short inflation period after the Big Bang.

That isn't new, I assume you talk about the recent variant of having minor energy density scalar fields with the major energy density inflation field (which, strictly speaking, wasn't new either IIRC, but they had reawaken and strengthened the idea). But that was more realistic and totally different, it had ordinary spacetime and ordinary (well, Higgs like) scalar quantum field particle fields.

There's any observable effect in dark matter when a R. Supergiant releases massive energy after becoming a Supernova?

In principle there could be, but it would be difficult to observe at so small scales. Dark matter is observable at scales of dwarf galaxies today (there have been recent phys.org articles, say).

That concept is not part of our reality, general relativity observations rejected it (see history of the idea).

DM is what modern physicists theorized to explain errors in their models.

Maybe before modern physics of standard cosmology, but DM was an accepted phenomena by the 60s IIRC. Much better that your ideas to explain things that are not only not observed, but known to not exist.

That concept is not part of our reality, general relativity observations rejected it (see history of the idea).

DM is what modern physicists theorized to explain errors in their models.

Maybe before modern physics of standard cosmology, but DM was an accepted phenomena by the 60s IIRC. Much better that your ideas to explain things that are not only not observed, but known to not exist.

Blocked by me due to repetitive, inane trolling.

Not my idea, but another cosmology where the ether hasn't been replaced by more and more particles. Any person with even the basic knowledge of physics knows that there are really only fields. And you don't know what a field is. So you go along with the others grasping snakes and trees and rays in the dark.

It saddens me to say it, but the sickly-sweet scent of desperation emanating from the 'exotic'-DM crowd is reaching maximal stench now. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel of hypothetical 'particles' like the graviton/gravitino; and dressing them up with yet more mass in the hope of 'bulking them up' and hoping that will justify their faith in such obviously failed conjectures. Its getting to the point where mainstreamer BS smells exactly the same as pseudoscience BS, only the smell is more objectionable when it issues from the mainstream crowd who are letting faith replace common sense and objective critical thinking based on reality, not patently 'publish-or-perish' imperatives. No wonder the ToE hasn't yet arrived if mainstream is letting such inane speculative conjectures pass through what is supposed to be 'peer review' based on fact/logic not subjective faith and self-serving conjecture. How did mainstream 'professional' cosmologists/mathematical-physicists get so lost?

It saddens me to say it, but the sickly-sweet scent of desperation emanating from the 'exotic'-DM crowd is reaching maximal stench now. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel of hypothetical 'particles' like the graviton/gravitino; and dressing them up with yet more mass in the hope of 'bulking them up' and hoping that will justify their faith in such obviously failed conjectures.

And yet neither you nor anyone else who spouts this nonsense can give any alternative, ever. I've asked so many times only to get no response, the runaround, or answers like "plasma" from the loons. So, do you have an alternative? Or do you have nothing?

How did mainstream 'professional' cosmologists/mathematical-physicists get so lost?

Because they are plasma ignoramuses, as Alfvén explained; "Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory."

For your information, I HAVE provided (many times, but obviously ignored missed by you/ others here for years now) the 'alternative', based on: the Proper Application of GR to Non-Keplerian orbital/mass distributions/configurations; and the increasingly found 'ordinary' matter previously 'dark' but now increasingly detectable with much improved new scopes/instruments/reviews of old observational data (and more to come); and the observation that ordinary 'faint' matter already existing in the intergalactic/intercluster space is responsible for the lensing etc effects observed in the Bullet cLuster example used by exotic'-DM proponents without realising that the matter was already there and NOT "slipped through the collision" because it is "exotic" and "non-EM-interacting". I also falsified the claims by pointing out that ALL 'exotic' DM would have gone into BHs long ago; see my post in: https://phys.org/...kes.html

For your further information and edification, The Scientific Method 'falsification' of a claim does NOT demand that the falsifier provide an 'alternative'; it suffices that the claim CAN BE falsified via observation/logical argument demonstrating the claim is objectively scientifically/logically untenable. The last sentence in my above post went to the falsification of the 'exotic'-DM claim; by demonstrating that, logically and physically, any claimed 'non-EM-interacting' (ie, 'exotic') DM would have all have gone directly into BHs early on in (alleged) Big Bang scenario; because, unlike ordinary EM-interacting matter, there was NO EM-related dynamics/phenomena etc to retard/eject it from the vicinity of BHs and their EM-field accretion-disc/torus Magnetic Field patterns which produce the jets and winds. Hence the falsification: 'exotic'-DM would have gone straight into BHs early on, with none left now to support claim. :)

And yet neither you nor anyone else who spouts this nonsense can give any alternative, ever. I've asked so many times only to get no response, the runaround, or answers like "plasma". So, do you have an alternative? Or do you have nothing?

Circles, there's a math problem involved here. Cosmologists say that DM exists in a concentration of 0.3 particles/cm³ of the Universe. It has also been established that Ordinary Matter exists at a concentration of 1.0 particles/cm³.

With more than three times more OM to DM per cm³ of space in the IGM, how can it be possible that DM inferred gravitational effects exists in a 5:1 ratio over OM?

Benni, I will assume good faith on your part and the imaginary information to a bad source.

No source of mass density distribution is given in particle numbers, not ever. If your source does not use rest mass for mass/density distribution then it is meaningless. Particles such as protons weigh 1836 times as much as an electron particle. And others cover all weights in between, so ?.The information is out there, one of the reasons I get so snarky at times. A whole lot of known and tested science is flat denied in these comments.Science does not care if you believe, it remains unchanged.

No source of mass density distribution is given in particle numbers, not ever.

Sure it is, presently the revised estimate is 1 atom of mostly hydrogen/cm³ in the Intergalactic Medium, this is the latest estimate, which is UP from the previous estimate of 1 atom/km³ estimates from the last century before satellites with spectroscopy capability were invented.

If your source does not use rest mass for mass/density distribution then it is meaningless. Particles such as protons weigh 1836 times as much as an electron particle. And others cover all weights in between

Their 5:1 distribution ratio of DM to OM was concocted in the last century when it was ESTIMATED that 1.0 atoms/km³ of hydrogen existed in the Intergalactic Medium. At the same time these wizards of smart started pushing their theory that DM existed in 0.3 particles/cm³ which distribution dwarfs the quantity of DM over OM, but we now know through new spectroscopy measurements this was wrong.

We now know that at 1.0 atom of hydrogen/cm³ compared to the 0.3 particles of DM in the IGM roughly corresponds to a 3.3:1 ratio of OM to DM, this obliterates any possibility that there exists 5 times more gravity inferred to the distribution of DM over OM, it in fact means 3.3 times more gravity should presently be inferred to OM over DM gravity. Pop-Cosmology theory is sadly in need of scientifically based updating.

Why wouldn't they get trapped in around the cores of any high gravity objects since they move so slow, just orbiting the center of gravity plowing thru the normal matter around it, leading to detectable anomalous mass/density readings for larger objects as increasing amounts of dark matter collect near the cores?

In the paper they speculate that a huge portion of Dark Matter in a galaxy is trapped in the cores of stars. Because the gravitinos pass through pretty much everything except stars without being "picked up", the stars of the galaxies act like sponges soaking up all gravitinos in their solar system which is why we cannot readily detect them.

says CirclesB

May I remind you (and others) that "gravitinos" is still only a HYPOTHETICAL PARTCLE and treating it as though it was real could be a mistake.-contd-

". Hermann Nicolai, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, and his colleague Krzysztof Meissner from the University of Warsaw have now proposed a new candidate—a superheavy gravitino. The existence of this still hypothetical particle follows from a hypothesis that seeks to explain how the observed spectrum of quarks and leptons in the standard model of particle physics might emerge from a fundamental theory."

They will be conducting experiments to see if the "GRAVITINO" as a particle actually exists.

Benni, I will assume good faith on your part and the imaginary information to a bad source.

No source of mass density distribution is given in particle numbers, not ever. If your source does not use rest mass for mass/density distribution then it is meaningless. Particles such as protons weigh 1836 times as much as an electron particle. And others cover all weights in between, so ?.The information is out there, one of the reasons I get so snarky at times. A whole lot of known and tested science is flat denied in these comments.Science does not care if you believe, it remains unchanged.

says ether air

The science is ALWAYS changing, other than such science as the Laws of Thermodynamics, which have been thoroughly tested.But that is the REASON WHY there are science sites like Physorg and Science mag - to present the newest and latest scientific discoveries for us to ponder and discuss. If the science never changed, then there would be nothing to wonder and discuss

It saddens me to say it, but the sickly-sweet scent of desperation emanating from the 'exotic'-DM crowd is reaching maximal stench now. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel of hypothetical 'particles' like the graviton/gravitino; and dressing them up with yet more mass in the hope of 'bulking them up' and hoping that will justify their faith in such obviously failed conjectures.

And yet neither you nor anyone else who spouts this nonsense can give any alternative, ever. I've asked so many times only to get no response, the runaround, or answers like "plasma" from the loons. So, do you have an alternative? Or do you have nothing?

You flat earthers are all alike. The ether exists. There it is. I don't want to waste my time on you with details unless you ask for them.

@GorgarIt is doubtful that there are any 'flat-earthers' frequenting this website. Not even rrwillsj who would be the one most likely to be a fat-earther. But I don't think that even SHE could be one.Ether is air. It is the Space that is all around us. There is nothing particularly special about it, although humans, animals and plants couldn't live without it.

I love any theory you can test, even if those tests take some creativity and time. I love being able to prove what it is not as they also get us closer to what it could be. I keep picturing Einstein in the patent clerk office pulling ideas appart, then putting them back together in his mind in new and creative ways. Trying to simplify an idea down to the core principles. If you can't explain it easily, you don't yet really understand it well sticks in my head. If Einstein was given another 200 years, would he have cracked what Dark Matter is, or helped us find a better way to test these theories faster? Or maybe it is more important he showed us a path to figuring out very complicated problems and his teansity and why being insanely curious is so valuable. I wonder when we find it out, if most of us will kick ourselves for thinking it was right there under our noses the entire time... we just missed something simple, but important at the core. Yes, but why does gravity work that way?

@Sahstar According to the article's measure for the particle's mass i.e. a hundred millionth of a kilogram, that would make it half of what you proposed. Still, by your description, too bright a candidate for DM.

It saddens me to say it, but the sickly-sweet scent of desperation emanating from the 'exotic'-DM crowd is reaching maximal stench now. They're scraping the bottom of the barrel of hypothetical 'particles' like the graviton/gravitino; and dressing them up with yet more mass in the hope of 'bulking them up' and hoping that will justify their faith in such obviously failed conjectures. Its getting to the point where mainstreamer BS smells exactly the same as pseudoscience BS, only the smell is more objectionable when it issues from the mainstream crowd .. faith replace common sense and .. critical thinking based on reality, not patently 'publish-or-perish' imperatives. No wonder the ToE hasn't yet arrived .. letting such inane speculative conjectures pass through what is supposed to be 'peer review' based on fact/logic not subjective faith and self-serving conjecture. How did mainstream .. get so lost?

Whoa..RC, you are channeling me when dealing with you on global warming.

E-mail the story

A heavyweight candidate for dark matter

Note

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose.
The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Your message

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties.
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.